So I recently saw the posts here that expounded on a recent study conducted about how the flu was transmitted. I read the linked articles but additionally I read the paper itself. After a couple days of rumination I just thought up a conspiracy I find plausible.

The paper showed that people who both A) got the flu and B) had previously got the flu shot were much more likely to cough up flu germs making them significantly more contagious. However, the study used people who self reported as sick to test them for how they transmitted the disease. This I think was the crucial factor. People who received the flu shot who DIDN'T self report as sick (or sick enough to see a doctor) were not sampled.

The conspiracy I concocted is that perhaps this was the primary vector that the pharmaceutical corporations were using as essentially "advertisement" for the flu shot. People who got the flu shot were somewhat inoculated from the flu so would be much less likely to end up at the doctor. But any time that they would cough (which could in many cases present to the patient as a mild cold; not serious enough for a doctor visit) they would spread the flu much more virulently. Those who didn't get the flu shot would be surrounded by people with a "mild" cough that could make them seriously sick. If they happened to catch the disease they would be more likely to pay for the flu shot the next year. Additionally, the people closest to them would claim that the flu shot protected them from the flu (a positive personal testimonial intentionally designed as an ad) while all the time they were in fact the one who both caught and passed on the flu in the first place.

There were no posts left on the front page about the study so I decided to make a new one. What do you guys think of my idea?